Modelling Selectional Super-Flexibility

The selectional flexibility of some attitude verbs (e.g. know, realize, report) between declarative and interrogative complements has been the subject of much recent work in formal semantics. However, little attention has been paid to verbs (e.g. see, remember, observe) that embed an even wider variety of complements (incl. subject-controlled gerundive small clauses and concrete object-denoting DPs). Since the familiar types of some of these complements resist an embedding in the type for questions [= sets of propositions], these verbs challenge Theiler, Roelofsen & Aloni’s (2018) uniform interpretation strategy for the complements of responsive verbs. My paper answers this challenge by uniformly interpreting the different complements of selectionally super-flexible verbs like remember in a generalized type for questions, viz. as parametrized centered questions. It shows that the resulting semantics captures the intuitive entailment pattern of these verbs

The selectional variability of 'imagine whether'

White (2021) has observed that some clause-embedding predicates (esp. doxastic attitude verbs like believe, non-veridical preferential predicates like hope) vary w.r.t. their selection properties: While these predicates commonly combine with declarative complements, they sometimes accept interrogative complements. My paper notes a similar selectional variability for fiction verbs like imagine: while imagine is typically taken to reject polar interrogative complements, some uses of imagine whether are acceptable. Curiously, this acceptability cannot be explained through the techniques (e.g., highlighting, no presupposition, multiple senses) that have recently been used to explain the acceptability of believe and hope whether. To still account for the ability of imagine to take whether-complements, I draw on recent work on attitudinal parasitism (see Blumberg 2019). This work assumes that some cases of imagination depend, for their reference, on the objects of another experience (e.g. visual perception). My semantics holds that imagine whether is felicitous only when the truth of the embedded TP is decided at the possible world of which the experienced scene is a spatio-temporal part. This condition is more easily satisfied when the verb in the TP has future tense (will), or when imagine is embedded under a negated ability modal or under try

Bilingualism and Contact-Induced Language Change:exploring variation in the Frisian verbal complex

This study investigates language variation and change in a bilingual community. It presents an unprecedented amount of data on the developments in the Frisian verbal complex, providing us with ample evidence of linguistic variation and language change. Reitsma shows that besides Dutch-like structures new variants appear. She investigates the contribution of different social and linguistic factors to the use of these variants. Reitsma demonstrates that in the case of the verbal complex of Frisian, the only social factor that plays a role is age. Besides that, she finds a number of linguistic factors that influence the developments. Another remarkable finding is the large-scale cluster reduction in certain tripartite verb clusters. According to Reitsma, this could be due to linguistic insecurity. She relates this linguistic insecurity to the distance between the standard and the spoken language and coins the term ‘paradox of the norm’. This paradox refers to the tension between norm setting and language change (or preservation). On the one hand a large gap between Standard Frisian and the Frisian used in daily life may cause linguistic insecurity, which promotes language change, but on the other hand bringing the standard closer towards the spoken language could decrease the typological distance between Frisian and Dutch and thus also promote language change. Reitsma concludes that the changes in the Frisian verbal complex cannot be directly attributed to contact with Dutch, although the omnipresence and status of Dutch may have had its (indirect) impact on the inclination to changes in Frisian

Very preterm birth and fetal growth restriction in adolescence - Cardiovascular and renal aspects

This thesis applied magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to investigate to what extent very preterm birth due to early onset fetal growth restriction (FGR) impacts the cardiovascular system and kidneys in adolescence. The thesis further investigated whether FGR exacerbates the organ-specific effects of very preterm birth.Study I validated a widely available non-contrast enhanced MRI method for quantification of renal cortical and medullary parenchymal volumes and showed that kidney volumes can be quantified with high accuracy and precision.Study II validated an MRI method for pulse wave velocity (PWV) acquisition in neonates and adolescents and showed how the acquired PWV was influenced by commonly used MRI methods. The study proposed the use of 3D angiography images and the time-to-foot method for accurate and precise PWV acquisition.Study III implemented the proposed PWV method from Study II and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements and showed that very preterm birth due to early onset FGR was associated with higher, yet normal, blood pressure in adolescent boys while very preterm birth was associated with higher arterial stiffness in girls.Study IV showed that very preterm birth was associated with smaller ventricular volumes without alterations in left or right longitudinal and radial pumping. Early onset FGR did not exacerbate the effects of very preterm birth.Study V implemented the newly validated non-contrast enhanced MRI method from Study I together with biomarkers of kidney function. Very preterm birth due to FGR was associated with smaller total kidney and medullary kidneyvolumes, but not with markers of kidney dysfunction or renin-angiontensin-aldosterone system activation in adolescence.This thesis concludes that adolescents born very preterm with and without preceding fetal growth restriction show alterations in cardiovascular and renal morphology. Changes were more pronounced in girls. Cardiovascular andkidney function were however normal, possibly indicating a decreased long-term effect of very preterm birth and fetal growth restriction on these organ systems compared to earlier studies, where clear signs of increased risk were observed already in childhood and adolescence. As indicated by increases in blood pressure, male sex and fetal growth restriction might increase cardiovascular risk in those born preterm. Morphological changes in the heart and in the kidneys may still precede functional decline in this population, and the alterations observed could potentially be used as prognostic markers in the future

Reanimating the Foreign Compacts Clause

On October 23, 2019, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a complaint against the State of California “for unlawfully entering a cap and trade agreement with the Canadian Providence of Quebec.” In many ways, the complaint reflects a conventional disagreement between states and the federal government over the contours of federalism, but the complaint’s second cause of action, alleging a violation of the “Compacts Clause,” Article I, section 10(3) of the United States Constitution, is unique. The body of law and scholarship surrounding the Compacts Clause is often guesswork at best, for jurists and scholars alike, because typically states’ practice is not to seek congressional consent, and Congress’s, to rarely consider granting or denying it. Further, Congress has only explicitly rejected one state-made compact in its history. Federal litigation challenges to agreements made by states are even more uncommon. While still limited, the vast majority of litigation is initiated by private parties. And when Congress does consider compacts made by states (also de minimis), they usually concern agreements made between two or more states, referred to as “interstate” agreements. A truly rarified species, though, is a direct federal legal challenge to an agreement under the second group in the Compacts Clause, concerning compacts made between states and foreign governments, referred to as “foreign state agreements” (“FSAs”). Article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution directs, “no State shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or foreign Power.” While the body of law and scholarship concerning both interstate agreements and FSAs is limited, authors have not unreasonably assumed that the test for interstate agreements, originating from Virginia v. Tennessee, applies to FSAs as well, but the Supreme Court has never explicitly held so. While Article I, section 10 is parallel in construction for both types of agreements, the potential harm each type of agreement poses is actually quite different. Therefore, the courts should see not one unitary Compacts Clause, but two: the more developed interstate Compacts Clause and the less well-defined “Foreign” Compacts Clause. Positive or negative federal action under the Foreign Compacts Clause, either by Congress or the President, is so rare that most scholars accurately describe the Foreign Compacts Clause as having “fallen into desuetude.” Professor Sharmila Murthy, in her analysis of the suit, quickly dismisses the strength of DOJ’s Compacts Clause argument, asserting that, under the single Compacts Clause theory, “[m]ost experts believe that the functional test developed for interstate compacts applies to cross-border agreements.” Murthy concludes that the President “does not have the constitutional authority to end the Cap-and-Trade Agreement with Quebec.” The District Court agreed on both counts, as argued by both the State of California, as well as amici, Judge William Shubb, in his March 12, 2020, ruling, which adopted this commonly advanced view of a singular compacts clause, with the test from Virginia and its progeny controlling. But before reaching that conclusion, Judge Shubb concluded that the “agreement” was not a compact, stating “‘classic indicia’ . . . from Northeast Bancorp are missing.” Later, in separate motions, Judge Shubb further dismissed the DOJ’s arguments, finding the Cap-and-Trade Agreement did not violate Foreign Affairs Doctrine preemptions. For the sake of the current matter, California’s attempt to do something in the face of the disjointed, ineffective federal response to climate change, the result appears desirable, but I am skeptical that the current Supreme Court will take a similar view, or that the result is most favorable where unified national (not to mention international) action is required. While likely apocryphally attributed to the eminently quotable Yogi Berra, it remains true that “it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” However, if the current litigation reaches the Supreme Court, it seems likely that the Court will reanimate the disused requirement of congressional consent and find the current agreement between California and Quebec to be violative of the Foreign Compacts Clause. Strong textual arguments will be appealing to the current Court. Likewise attractive is the expansive view of the President’s power in foreign affairs, possible federal preemption in the form of environmental protection legislation, and the distinguishability of precedent for interstate agreements from FSAs. The current Court is unlikely to adopt a rule that is so clearly the opposite of the words in the Constitution. The upcoming presidential election will affect whether the federal government appeals. For now, the DOJ is “considering [their] next steps.” If appealed, the current litigation should force answers to a number of important questions the Supreme Court has left unresolved: 1) Has federal inaction led the Foreign Compacts Clause to lose all (or almost all) of its meaning?; 2) Is there a separate standard for interstate agreements versus FSAs?; and, 3) If there is a separate standard, what should it be? While certainly in overwhelming disuse, both congressional powers to approve or disapprove compacts made by states, and the executive’s ability to challenge agreements that encroach on presidential powers, are available to both Congress and the President. Congress clearly retains the power to disapprove agreements. But the President should be able to successfully challenge agreements that encroach upon plenary powers of the President, as well as agreements that infringe on authorities delegated to the executive by Congress. Delegation by Congress should function as disapproval of the agreement and be viewed as a form of federal preemption. Finally, California most likely has the ability to moot the current litigation by executing a new “understanding” with Quebec that would be without any legal effect, a mere political commitment that would neither purport to constrain the parties nor infringe on federal powers and thereby not implicate the Compacts Clause while still meeting California’s intent, namely reducing carbon emissions in both California and Quebec

Diplomacy & Negotiation

Over the course of history when women have been involved in the diplomatic, political, social, and economic structure of a country it has been found they are one of the key ingredients to building an effective and stable democracy. Investing in women strengthens the back bone of any society. Top CEO’s, such as Tupperware’s Rick Goings and Warren Buffett, have also publically supported this assumption. I argue that women in different societies have traits that have been instilled in them culturally which in turn translate directly to their ability to handle diplomatic situations and business negotiations. Societies, however intentionally or unintentionally, teach gender roles that directly affect how women perform diplomatically and in negotiation settings. In a 2014 Orlando Business Journal interview CEO, Rick Goings was asked, “Why does Tupperware stress entrepreneurial opportunies for women?” Rick Goings stated, “In emerging markets, less than thirty percent of women work outside of their homes, but women are driving the middle class growth. Once they start working with Tupperware and owning their own business they are more educated and empowered to influence the economy. Men tend to think ‘me’, but women think ‘we’.

Intertheoretic Reduction, Confirmation, and Montague’s Syntax-Semantics Relation

Intertheoretic relations are an important topic in the philosophy of science. However, since their classical discussion by Ernest Nagel, such relations have mostly been restricted to relations between pairs of theories in the natural sciences. This paper presents a case study of a new type of intertheoretic relation that is inspired by Montague's analysis of the linguistic syntax-semantics relation. The paper develops a simple model of this relation. To motivate the adoption of our new model, we show that this model extends the scope of application of the Nagelian (or related) models and that it shares the epistemological advantages of the Nagelian model. The latter is achieved in a Bayesian framework

Intertheoretic Reduction, Confirmation, and Montague’s Syntax-Semantics Relation

Intertheoretic relations are an important topic in the philosophy of science. However, since their classical discussion by Ernest Nagel, such relations have mostly been restricted to relations between pairs of theories in the natural sciences. This paper presents a case study of a new type of intertheoretic relation that is inspired by Montague's analysis of the linguistic syntax-semantics relation. The paper develops a simple model of this relation. To motivate the adoption of our new model, we show that this model extends the scope of application of the Nagelian (or related) models and that it shares the epistemological advantages of the Nagelian model. The latter is achieved in a Bayesian framework